And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Removed by mod
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Removed by mod
Thinking you can supply the entire world with nuclear power is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough nuclear power as it is
Wow genius argument.
You mean the things with storage that you connect to the grid, which I could sign up for with a click on my power suppliers website right now?
Removed by mod